Local Tax Authorities Must Refund Ill Gotten Gains From Tax Sales.

[Meddle]

https://apnews.com/article/michigan-...fc4983c949523c



I still don't understand how it was ever 'legal' to seize and sell a property over a $285 tax bill.

[Jimaz]

Even if it were not technically illegal, you'd hope that officials would have the good sense to restrain their greed to recovering the back taxes owed alone. Anything more than that was simply not theirs to take.

I don't buy the argument that it will be a hardship to replace that revenue which wasn't theirs to begin with. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn't have taken that revenue in the first place, thereby avoiding that hardship.

I see parallels to civil asset forfeiture here.

[mwilbert]

Even if it were not technically illegal, you'd hope that officials would have the good sense to restrain their greed to recovering the back taxes owed alone. Anything more than that was simply not theirs to take.

But it was theirs to take, until 2020. It wasn't "not technically illegal", it was legal. I'm not saying this isn't a reasonable decision--I don't think the old rules were correct--but I don't think it's as clearcut as you seem to. It is common for a judicial ruling not to be retroactive, because it can cause complete chaos. Many things cannot be cleanly reversed. In this case, it should be relatively easy to figure out; the remedy is just giving back an amount of money that isn't that hard to calculate.

[Richard]

To me all of these local governments have lawyers on staff and have a responsibility to the citizens and their constitutional rights,they enter into office swearing oath to protect them.

But they saw a cash grab and choose not to oppose it,they seem to have no problem creating new laws for the books when it comes to crime or anything else like this when it suits them.

They knew it was morally wrong all of these years but they followed it because it not only benefited them but gave them incentive for abuse.

[JBMcB]

But it was theirs to take, until 2020. It wasn't "not technically illegal", it was legal. I'm not saying this isn't a reasonable decision--I don't think the old rules were correct--but I don't think it's as clearcut as you seem to.

We aren't really talking about laws per se, but constitutionality, or what the government is allowed to do. For instance, there is no law saying police can't arrest one group of people for graffitiing pro-democrat messages and not arrest another group of people for graffitiing pro-republican messages. The effect, though, is a first amendment violation, and they can get in trouble for it.

Same thing here. There is no law saying municipalities can't take the excess profit after a tax sale, but the effect is a clear fourth amendment violation and, possibly, an eighth amendment violation.

Not to get too far afield, but civil asset forfeiture is a glaring exception, and the general consensus is that the supreme court is likely to curb or eliminate the practice, but are waiting for the right case to rule on.

[mwilbert]

We aren't really talking about laws per se, but constitutionality, or what the government is allowed to do. For instance, there is no law saying police can't arrest one group of people for graffitiing pro-democrat messages and not arrest another group of people for graffitiing pro-republican messages. The effect, though, is a first amendment violation, and they can get in trouble for it.

Same thing here. There is no law saying municipalities can't take the excess profit after a tax sale, but the effect is a clear fourth amendment violation and, possibly, an eighth amendment violation.

Not to get too far afield, but civil asset forfeiture is a glaring exception, and the general consensus is that the supreme court is likely to curb or eliminate the practice, but are waiting for the right case to rule on.

What is constitutional and what is not constitutional isn't really that clear, or even the same across time. The endless litigation of these matters should be an indication that what is allowed/required/prohibited by the Constitution is hardly obvious.

If civil forfeiture is restricted, as I agree it should be, that would simply be one more piece of evidence that you can't tell in advance what is kosher and what isn't, given that it isn't like it hasn't been challenged in the past.

[Jimaz]

Steve Lehto chimes in:

State Sup Ct AGAIN Tells The Gov’t It Must Refund Stolen Home Equity

This was in Michigan, where the state doesn't want to concede defeat.

[Richard]

This was Michigan courts decision,but it goes higher because the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in 2023 it was unconstitutional.

Florida had the same ruling - in 1977,for the same reasons.

But they also have a right of redemption that follows the sale for 2 years.

So it’s not like all of this is like some newly discovered revalation.

There are cases ,like in New York where the city was sued under the federal ruling verses the state,but in the case of past actions they ruled that if the claimant had taken action within 4 months of the sale they could proceed,but because the cities were following the “law” at the time they were not liable.

Like how were they supposed to file a claim against something that was not considered a valid argument until the federal ruling?

It like if one could develop a Time Machine,you could make bank on all of this.

So to stop having to pay they just have to make a new law that says they do not have to.

It’s good to be king.

[Johnnny5]

This is probably going to end up lining the pockets of land speculators in Detroit more than anyone else.

[Richard]

That could be a starting point,limit it to actual home owners with homestead properties that were affected,speculation as a rule is loosely based on pay your money and take a chance.

That would probably be the next step,determine who was actually impacted.

But that is standard government protocol ,throw a billion dollars at something and if 60% actually helps those who are the target then it is considered a win.

Next it will be a $5 million contract awarded to somebody to do a study to see who if anybody deserves a refund.